On Thu, 05 Apr 2012 20:08:53 +0100, Paul Cotton
<Paul.Cotton@microsoft.com> wrote:
>> Does this imply that the group is agreeing to take on the Encrypted
>> Media proposal as a work item?
>> In the discussion on public-html about that proposal it seemed like
>> there was substantial opposition to it.
>
> Yes. If you object to taking up this item then you should object now
> and provide your reasons for that objection.
I object for the following reasons:
1. The discussion about this proposal has already started in this group
and several issues about proposal's accuracy and security has been raised
already (some of those issues have been filed in this group's tracker). It
would be counter-productive to fragment or repeat this discussion in a new
group.
2. Proposal is related to element and API designed by that group, and
representatives of browser vendors and companies proposing Encrypted Media
participate in that group already, so this group is appropriate and
sufficient to discuss this proposal.
3. The only mechanism that Encrypted Media draft openly defines, and only
one which did not raise many objections was the "ClearKey" scheme. There
has been "http+aes" counter-proposal for it, and I'm going to propose
refined version of that solution. It would be unfortunate if two different
groups worked on overlapping solutions to the same problem.
4. DRM is a controversial issue and the spec is tied to interests of
powerful corporations. I would prefer discussions about it to take place
in a group which has large visibility, to ensure public scrutiny and help
keep all parties accountable. I believe public-html meets this criteria,
but I'm not sure how many decisions in the Media TF would happen behind
closed doors or whether that group would be susceptible to being unfairly
tilted towards commercial interests of few participants.
--
regards, Kornel Lesiński